4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Slovenj Gradec.
5.  On 3 December 1993 enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant by a company Adapta d.o.o. The writ of execution was issued on 7 December 1993. Following an objection to the writ of execution a decision upholding the objection was issued. The proceedings continued as contentious proceedings.
6.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia.
7.  In December 1994, following the reorganisation of the judiciary, the case was referred to the Slovenj Gradec District Court.
8.  On 5 October 1998 the court held the first hearing.
9.  On 11 November 1998 the court appointed a building expert in construction. The expert opinion was submitted on 14 June 1999.
10.  The hearing scheduled for 10 July 2000 was postponed due to problems with serving of the notice of the hearing on the plaintiff. The plaintiff informed the court of the change of address on 14 August 2000.
11.  On 1 September 2000 the court requested an authority from the new representative of the plaintiff. The form was submitted to the court on 5 February 2001.
12.  The hearing scheduled for 23 March 2001 was postponed on the request of the plaintiff.
13.  Between 20 April 2001 and 12 April 2002 the court held two hearings.
14.  On 12 April 2002, after the last hearing, the court delivered a judgment. Appeals were lodged by both parties.
15.  On 24 May 2002 the case-file was transferred to the Maribor Higher Court.
16.  On 18 September 2003 the case was returned to the first-instance court due to the fact that the company Adapta d.o.o. had been deleted ex-officio from the Register of Companies on 11 June 2003.
17.  On 2 October 2003 the first-instance court issued a decision on the stay of proceedings.
18.  On 17 March 2004 the court received a statement from the legal successor of the plaintiff, informing the court of its intention to continue the proceedings.
19.  On 23 March 2004 the court issued a decision on the continuation of proceedings. In addition, on 29 March 2004 the applicant lodged a counter-claim.
20.  On 15 April 2004 the first-instance court again sent the case-file to the Maribor Higher Court for consideration.
21.  On 6 December 2005 the court upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 12 January 2006.
22.  On 16 March 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law together with a motion to reinstate the case, since the deadline for the appeal on points of law had elapsed.
23.  On 26 May 2006 the Slovenj Gradec District Court held a hearing and rejected the applicant’s motion to reinstate the case as unfounded and the appeal on points of law for being lodged out of time. The applicant appealed.
24.  On 29 January 2007 the appeal was rejected. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
25.  On 28 August 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (see paragraph 34 below).
26.  On 24 February 2006 the first-instance court issued a writ of execution based on the first- and second-instance judgments (see paragraphs 14 and 21 above). The applicant lodged an objection.
27.  On 6 April 2006 the court rejected the objection. The applicant appealed.
28.  On 16 May 2006 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal.
29.  On 13 June 2006 the creditor lodged a request for a new means of enforcement, namely the sale of movable property.
30.  On 15 June 2006 the request was upheld.
31.  On 24 May 2007 the court appointed a new enforcement officer, who issued a report informing the court the attachment of movable property had been unsuccessful.
32.  On 28 May 2008 the court issued a decision on the termination of enforcement proceedings.
33.  On 10 December 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeals.
34.  The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal against the decisions concerning the rejection of the motion to reinstate the case as unfounded (see paragraphs 23-25). The appeal against the decision concerning the enforcement proceedings was rejected as having been lodged out of time (see paragraphs 27 and 28 above). The appeal against the decisions in the main proceedings was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the applicant had failed to properly lodge the appeal on points of law (see paragraphs 20-21 and 22-25 above).